How the Legal Principle (‘don’t aggress’) applied to cults:

• Truly voluntary acts between consenting, competent adults never violate the Legal Principle, even if they are harmful to the people involved.
• If coercion, fraud, or initiation of physical force (like being involuntarily drugged) has occurred, or if the victim is not a ‘competent adult’, then the Legal Principle is breached.
• The exact point at which psychological manipulation becomes coercion is an area where reasonable minds disagree; therefore, local communities must define the point at which a breach occurs, within a reasonable interpretation of the Legal Principle. For example, absent any threat of force, “he told me to do it” alone cannot be reasonably deemed to be coercion. But techniques like sleep deprivation, hypnosis, or other manipulative tactics used with the intent to deprive autonomy or property from the victim can reasonably be deemed coercion. Another reasonable interpretation might be that words alone never amount to coercion, absent physical threat, when the plaintiff is a competent adult (i.e., does not suffer from mental illness).
• This highlights one difference between the 3L Philosophy and libertarianism - 3L does not seek to have the ‘right’ answer to such grey areas. Instead, it identifies where reasonable minds disagree and allows local communities to interpret their own reasonable definitions. Otherwise, perfection becomes the enemy of good. The other difference is that libertarians place no explicit value on Aspirational Values like high character as the ideal accompaniment to freedom to achieve a peaceful society. A pernicious cult is in breach of the moral component of 3L Philosophy, even if formal legal consequences might not be appropriate.
• Key questions that would influence a court’s enforcement of the Legal Principle would include (but are not limited to):
  • Was the "victim" suffering from some form of diminished capacity? If so, we'd need details about the variety and extent.
  • If so, was the cult leader aware of the "victim's" diminished capacity?
  • What exactly was involved in the "persuasion?" Were there some forms of threats or violence?
  • How many people participated in the "persuasion" and over how long a period of time?
  • Did the "victim" have an option to leave? Or refuse? Or consider other possible options?
  • Was the "victim" isolated?
  • Was there some form of undue influence? Or a position of trust?
• If people still couldn't decide, then this is what trials are for.  It would ultimately be for a jury to determine whether the cult leader or others violated the Legal Principle via coercion, fraud, or some other theory of aggression based on the facts.
• We could also simply ask whether the "victim" acted voluntarily or involuntarily.  Truly voluntary interactions, even when harm occurs, never violate the Legal Principle. Otherwise, competent adults who drink alcohol, have sex with people they later regret having sex with, or donate money to foolish causes would violate the Legal Principle.
• As always, we return to the principle and reason from there with no preconceived outcome in mind.  As such, 3L's answer, as is often the answer in law school, is "it depends."  It all depends on the facts.